ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

FORTY-FOURTH SENATE

FOURTH SESSION

SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

AGENDA

I. Call to OrderII. PledgeIII. Roll CallIV. Guest Speakers V. Ratification & Swearing in of New Members

Connor Ferguson- Supreme Court Liaison Katlyn Humbarger- Associate Justice Jacob Moore- Associate Justice Celine Wolff- Associate Justice Mohammed Jefri- Senator of Graduate School Holiday Watson- Senator College of Business Rachel Franz- associate senator

VI. Executive Reports Ricketts: We are still working on the spreadsheet for external

committees. You are required to sit on one. Stop by on my office hours Tuesday and Thursday from 3-5 or Friday 3-4 so that you can sign up for one you are interested in.

Wester: Speaking of committees, the past couple weeks I have sit on a committee that furthers academic success on campus. We are moving forward with this and need students on this committee. You can let me know if you are interested.

Christensen: Voter registration drive is coming up, community reach out event is on October 6th from 10-3. The community roundtable is October 23rd from 4-6. Come talk to me for info.

Whitesell: Lance and I met to talk about notice and respond training, which is a suicide prevention presentation that will happen Thursday night early October for everyone in ASCSU and other students. We would love for you to make it. I’ll give more info when I know. Chronic health mentoring program: for

mentees, we had 2 people apply, which was saddening. However, mentors finished training. So I am working to get more people.

Maher: A couple weeks ago I brought up the possibility of each college having an open house during homecoming week, and one of the things I was wondering is what would you all like from my position to help make these things happen? I want to be able to help you.

i. Crites: By open house do you mean there will be a 2 hour time slot for parents and alumni? Or will this be a scheduled thing?

1. Maher: This is a hazy area. We are not sure yet. With that, each college has a different need. We are trying to move towards alumni, parents, and prospective students to come in and see what it is like now. So I’m thinking it will be staffed by college council members.

ii. Seel: Would your office be interested in coming to meetings and giving information to provide the idea what is being offered?

1. Maher: That is something we can look into. Guinn: I just got this email that CSU is hosting a debate

between governor Hickenlooper and Bob Boprez on October 9th from 7-8pm. This is open to all students to attend. Also, we are set to move in next Thursday. Don’t come into the office that day. Depending on the time, we will start unpacking Thursday night and Friday. Reserving rooms, we can’t have senate in there until October 1st.

VII. Judicial Reports Lassek: We are coming up for a new form for a new bill and

Rioux will expand on that. Jordan: We are trying to get more connected with ASCSU. We

will have a new form available on our desk by Friday, this will request for opinions or reviews for a bill. Write on the form what parts of constitution will be changed and we will review them before next senate meeting.

i. D: Would you make this available in electronic format?

1. Jordan: You can email it to us.VIII. Senator Reports

Bondi: One big thing we are working on is solidifying how many seats each college has. Being the 3rd session of the semester, anyone who hasn’t been here has been made absentee from the roll call. We have a much better understanding now of who is in senate and who is not. Based off on current enrollment numbers, these are the amount of seats available in each college: Grad school: 7, Agricultural Sciences: 2, College of Business: 3, Engineering: 4, Health and Human Sciences: 6, Intra-university: 4, Liberal Arts: 6, Natural Sciences: 5, Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences: 2, and Natural Resources: 2. The total number is 41 seats. For every senator available, there is 2 associate senators available. We would like to get to a position with 2-3 associate senators present. Right now I can tell you that Health and Human Sciences has 1 and need 5. Natural sciences has 2, need 3. CVMBS has 1, will get new soon. Business is hurting. We need to fill 2. We have had a number of people who have been new and you need to fill out this paper for info. If anyone hasn’t gotten the paper and isn’t receiving emails, let me know.

IX. Associate Senator ReportsX. Committee Reports

Gurau: This week in university issues we talked about bike lanes, office hours, bill 4402, and we would love to see you guys there on 1:45 on Tuesdays.

Crites: This week Monday we met and talked over 4404 and talked about other legislations. I will have a bill for you next week. We talked about semester reviews too. We would love to have you.

Lancto: We discussed executive constitutional legislation bill. Meetings have changed to 3pm on Thursday outside of Morgan’s Grind in the library.

XI. Confidence Business XII. Old Business

Bill #4402 Judicial Reform

i. Bondi: I move to accept bill 4402. I request unanimous consent to read the title of the bill.

ii. Gurau: We felt that the bill and amendments made last time were sufficient and any issues we found would be to fix the constitution itself.

iii. Yearby: I move to vote.1. Vote: 24.0.1

Bill #4403 Executive Constitutional Clarificationi. Bondi: I move to adopt bill 4403. I request consent to read

title. (Denied)ii. Lancto: We have four changes. The changes were made in

accordance with permission of author. The first change is changing to reading “article 3” instead of 5. Next we removed “full paying” student: it would restrict people from coming into office. Another clerical change. It originally read “college councils will”, changed to “should be”. We wanted to remove the entire clause because in a lot of colleges it’s not just something you can join, it’s something you have to apply for, etc.

1. Jefri: If they aren’t paying CSU fees, why should they be in ASCSU?

a. Lancto: It says that anyone taking 1 credit is a member of ASCSU in the constitution.

b. Li Puma: All part time students pay the ASCSU fee.

c. Maher: I think the debate is between the words full versus part-time. Full can be viewed in many different ways.

d. Bondi: After 3 years on SFRB, I have a good understanding of what this all means. A full fee student means that the student is taking 6 credits. Only 2 places on campus support the students who are considered 5 credits or lower: LSC and ASCSU. We hold that because we represent all students, no matter how many credits they are taking.

e. Jefri: If someone isn’t paying the fees, I don’t think they should be able to vote on fees.

i. Yearby: Every student is paying ASCSU fees. They have the ability if they chose to join our body because they pay.

f. Lancto: Every semester before you register, you have to pay your balance from last semester. Every student has to pay off those fees. Everyone who is registered for a class is paying an ASCSU fee.

2. Seel: With the removed section of paid officials and unpaid officials, what is the differentiation from before?

a. Jordan: Originally only the paid positions required a full time student and now that isn’t required.

b. Lancto: This is to ensure that part time students can have a position in ASCSU paid or unpaid.

iii. Yearby: I agree with all the amendments made with the internal committee. I would like to also just say that the same sentence in last clause is vague and not needed. All the amendment is saying is that all those elected that will be appointed in ASCSU must be in academic standing through spring or fall semesters. We don’t need the sentence after that. I move to amend to strike “paid” in the 2nd to last sentence as well as the last sentence.

1. Bondi: It clears it up. This shouldn’t not be accepted. I move to previous question.

a. Vote: 24.0.1b. Vote on amendment: 24.0.1

iv. Catron: I move to amend to add the end of the sentence saying “it has to be a full or part time student”. (not seconded)

v. Yearby: I think we are reaching a consensus on this legislation. I move to approve the amendments made by the internal committee.

1. Vote: 23.1.12. Vote: 24.0.1

vi. Nolan: I move to previous question.1. Vote: 25.1.02. Vote: 25.1.0

Bill #4404 Legislative Constitutional Clarification i. Bondi: I move to adopt bill 4404.

ii. Crites: We spent the majority of our time looking over this bill. We clarified questions we had. The constitution should be clear and concisely written. It shouldn’t say “further”. I want you to read through this next clause and what we wanted to change is in the purple. It talked about the emergency senate session. We wanted to prevent 5 people getting together and changing things, we added that there needs to be a clerk there, minutes need to be taken, etc. And just a question, Rioux, it talks about the meeting being for the budget, does this apply to all things or just the budget?

1. Jordan: It was for emergencies regarding the budget.

iii. Crites: We wanted there to still be the power of an emergency meeting happening and it would keep it from there being a coo of people making all the decisions.

1. Yearby: With the clause about the emergency committee, I don’t feel comfortable with them having all power of senate. Original writers were talking about budget reviews and this is the only branch that meets around breaks. I amend it to say “in an emergency budget situation”. I retract.

2. Jordan: I do approve of all your changes although I was unable to attend your meeting.

3. Bondi: I move to previous question.a. Vote: 26.0.0b. Vote: 26.0.0

iv. Yearby: On the bill, I would like to change the amendment about the emergency committee. I don’t want them to

have full power of senate. I amend to say section 214 “in an emergency budget situation”

1. Bondi: I want to let everyone know that we have been in the process of trying to clean it up and taking all of this into 1 section. His amendment would fix the material that was previously lost. I support this amendment. I move to previous question.

a. Vote: 26.0.0b. Vote: 26.0.1

v. Yearby: I move to previous question.1. Vote: 26.0.12. Vote: 27.0.0

XIII. New Business Bill #4405 Diversity Bill

i. Bondi: I move to adopt bill 4405.ii. Yearby: This is the fourth generation of diversity bill. We

had about ten representatives last year. It showed that we could have diversity offices and that they are important. This used to be that they couldn’t vote. It separated students and as a parliament, someone who doesn’t have a vote can’t speak nor vote. So we talked about it that we wanted to find a way that the representatives can become senators. We want it to be student ran and elected. This will be a student council pulling diversity around campus and they would vote to our body. We can all say that we want diversity. Part of the debate is going to be the how. And how many. I want to preface the conversation by asking if it’s about how many, if it’s a power. We aren’t a body trying to rule a population. We want to represent the student body. Can you fairly say this body represents the amount of people on campus? Can we do better? If you’d rather be one of 30 instead of 1 of 50, question your own personal motives. There will be 2 seats per recognized student group. I offered that “or” so that we can work with the logistics instead of disagreeing right away of how this

would work. We can punch in a number of what we have to have. We can talk about different places we want to recognize. They are all considerations. I would love to have the discussion around the why and the what. “Why”, is students aren’t being heard. And the “what” is that we can do something about it.

1. Balster: When you are talking about a diversity council, is it the similar process to vote them on?

a. Yearby: I didn’t include that in this bill. At this point, talking about elections in the spring would be more of a complicated issue. This is a start to looking at that question.

2. Crites: When it comes to numbers, where did you get 40%? Not quorum? Instead, seats that are available?

a. Yearby: Yes.3. Crites: I understand where the 4 senators came

from but not the 2 associate senators.a. Even if they fall below proportion level of 400,

they still get 2. If we talk about El Centro, there is a lot of different cultures represented. We can look to best have representation. There is a lot of divisions inside the organizations.

b. Crites: The 2 and 750 number comes from anyone attending CSU that may associate with that instead of those who actively participate in the center?

i. Yearby: Yes. Representing all students. If you want to best represent the center, there is a liaison-ship with that office. The directors pull information from student affairs so it says that students identify with a certain identity. They should be in connection with the center if they identify with that identity.

c. Crites: If you know CSU has the data, why not continue to go off a percentage? Why set that?

i. Yearby: It is far beyond perfect. It doesn’t account for gender, sexual orientation, etc. People find those things out about themselves in college.

4. Seel: I wanted to clarify, you mentioned that people feel unrepresented? How did you start this bill? Did this start with grievance? What made you want this?

a. Yearby: I began to look into the issue when 1/3 of the room was present here. There was 11 people making decisions for the student body. I looked at different organizations around campus and they do a great job of getting diverse students represented. They have a big foothold we didn’t have. Diversity could solve this somehow. This also could solve a numbers problem. Later I did encounter grievance issues.

5. Ricketts: Have you run this by the VP for diversity or a member of the diversity team?

a. Yearby: Yes, I’ve reached out to the executive diversity team. I talked to two that loved it. Others I haven’t had a full conversation with about it. I went to a meeting which is called the PEMSAC. Tony Frank and Blanche have done what I’m trying to do here. They measure diversity across campus purely for the president’s info. I would hope to have them be that council and we could work with them.

6. Bondi: I move to exhaust the speakers list.7. Earle: In this clause it states that it’s supposed to be

for very many different areas, how do you feel that placing these people in a diversity center by physical appearances will work when these other people don’t fit into this category?

a. Yearby: I think this is a miscommunication. We do a lot with these groups already. Besides religion, which is a divisive term, if we had a religious center, we would have to have a non-religious center. A lot of religions don’t want to work with other religions. That’s why there isn’t a center there. That’s an area we can grow.

8. Jefri: Thank you for being here. How will you put in Middle East students? There are no offices for us and how will you include us in that? How will you go about representing people equally although some people will have 2 representatives while we have none?

a. Yearby: Middle Eastern students: that’s a big hole in the diversity approach. I would say that if we can’t even get the students in groups to have a voice, how can we even start to get Middle Eastern students in this process? We can then create a culture center around that once we get this council formed. Over representation has come up every time I’ve opened the bill. Choose your poison. Would you rather have over representation or under representation? If someone feels like they are a minority in the college, they also have a resource in other centers. I would rather be above and beyond instead of short coming.

i. Jefri: Why don’t we change the recruitment way instead of the senate way?

1. Yearby: I asked senate last year if we want to represent culture and a lot said no. They are looking for an avenue to add diversity into discussion. Many members of those groups don’t feel like this is

the place to talk about their issues. I believe that when you have any club, we continue to see the same faces. Word of mouth happens for recruitment. We continue to have a network of communication. With this we are not only making a seat for a person who is passionate for advocacy but also saying we will work with student affairs in these offices to do it because that’s where the students are.

9. Catron: Have you considered allowing for a petitioning process to represent other areas? It would be a lot easier instead of saying we need you to come here, but giving any group the ability to form a petition. That would allow a lot more freedom.

a. Yearby: I think that’s debatable whether that would work or not. We can see that there will be a petition out there but it won’t happen. We have to create that change and be proactive to go out and recruit. We can get this information going right now because of the admin support. We can begin to comprise a good council that we are looking for. I still see it as councils that will be voting. This is the best way.

iii. Weinland: I think this is good step. Traditionally we make decisions for college as a whole. I’m not sure if this is the correct channel to do this. I don’t know if you should create a separate council.

iv. Whitesell: There are a lot of social forces that work here. It’s not just about numbers. It’s also about a lot of identities being oppressed and victimized. I think just something to consider is that over representation isn’t necessarily bad and this wouldn’t happen because a lot of these have been under represented for many years in

history. It’s not just a numbers game but about creating a space that’s comfortable for people.

v. Sydoriak: For those of you who are worried about Caucasians not being diverse, this is it. Over representation. What are we over representing? They aren’t going to come with their issues to us, but to their diversity groups. We need to open it up to this consciousness that is not being opened up to.

vi. Hansen: I agree that the Middle Eastern population is under represented and there is no advocacy office for them but to say this bill is lacking because of this, is not right. This is starting this off. Over representing fears are misplaced. The intent is to create diversity in the body.

vii. Jefri: With all due respect to previous speaker, I believe once inequality happens somewhere, it happens everywhere. We have a system that gives the opportunity for every student to be represented. I got elected to this position. This is not a problem that students don’t want to be here, but that they aren’t welcomed here nor recruited. It’s inequality to some students still. If I didn’t get elected from grad school, I would have nowhere else to go to get elected. I feel this is inequality for myself. This shouldn’t happen by opening up to all people in an organization when people are left out of that.

viii. Crites: I think that when we send this to a committee, they should focus on numbers but also the thought that was brought up about a representative from each diversity group, and talk about groups that aren’t officially represented. In a system that isn’t ready for something, this is big, it would be a great step until we get representation in this way. It’s worth taking a look at. They want to look at representing diversity in the colleges instead of academics.

ix. Gurau: I think getting that issue ironed out in 1 night or 3 weeks would be counterproductive. Adding an amendment to this bill would be an appropriate solution. This bill isn’t

perfect. But it provides an avenue for minorities to get involved.

x. Balster: One of the issues that comes up a lot is double representing. It’s not an issue in practice. Why I chose to be a representative instead of a senator is not as a loophole but that’s the group I identify with. It’s a lot more difficult for me to go with people that are my own age and that have gone through what I’ve gone through. It’s a similar experience for some others in diversity groups, our voice gets oversaturated by people. That’s the difference between majority and minority. We aren’t the US government. We are trying to represent the student population. We don’t want to overthrow what’s already established but trying to get students more involved and active.

xi. Catron: When the VP of diversity was here, she said diversity is hard to grasp. I think a bill like this does it injustice by oversimplifying it. Rather than declaring senate seats, we move to be more involved and representing students that are everywhere. Representing students from colleges is almost strange. Whatever happened to anyone who wanted to be a senator can run? We are touching this huge issue with a small stick right now. We need to evaluate what we want to do as a senate before a bill.

xii. Seel: With all different opinions, I appreciate everyone that is willing to talk and express their opinions openly. In that same sense, what I think we can look for from that, is instead of looking at it as structuring people from different groups, look at it as we need to represent diversity. Everyone is diverse in multiple ways. When you try to quantify it, you overlook what people think is very important. If you feel you have an issue that is not represented, you can use this council to represent diversity groups. They can have a dialogue that will reach a better sense of collaboration, have a choice for what they feel for themselves without being looked at as a

student. Representing them as people vs students is where this bill can shine.

xiii. Zvonek: Does that fall on the recruitment officer to look for 2 of these people?

1. Yearby: Right now, that is sort of the model. It’s their job to go to those centers. This fixes that. The bill now says that the council will take more of that job. You will fill out an application to be on this and prove to this council that you are passionate about that identity.

2. Zvonek: I feel like this adds a step instead of getting things done. You are putting a group in between. Reaching out to these groups to recruit, instead of adding 20 senate seats, would be more effective. A couple specific liaisons that would sit on these nights would become a council you are talking about without the middle man.

a. Yearby: Only thing you are missing is the vote.xiv. Yearby: I think what we have now was mainly under

represented populations and focusing just on the centers was an issue, but having people under represented was a large issue. We are in prime position to expand and do something. We can handle this in 3 weeks if we all put our heads together and do something. There are students waiting to be a part of this organization. We talk about adding 1 seat for diversity in each college, that won’t fix this. It will still be geared towards academics. Students will get involved in student issues and realize that’s not what they want to focus on. Having the representatives, sparks so many people wanting to get involved in ASCSU. We will have better elections this way because we are gathering diverse voices. The fruits of it will be sweet. Creation of more offices: Middle Eastern voices are not heard and that is a problem, if you think that a senate that is geared towards academics alone, that will never happen. An organization that is geared towards diversity,

will. Why can’t we extend this opportunity to other students, a voice, power, resume builder, etc.?

xv. King: This issue is the logistics we are talking about. This is a great bill but the 40% isn’t fluid enough. This is a good starting point for this year but it will have to change as population grows. We need to discuss on how we will get these numbers later?

1. Yearby: the percentage will be a fluid number as we discuss through committees and meetings etc. Having stagnant numbers will lead to having to adjust every time we got a new group.

2. King: This is an academic institution so I want to make sure that college councils will be equally represented, something like equaling up to college councils. I want to see academic aspect respected.

xvi. Gurau: I move to send this bill to external affairs.xvii. Li Puma: I choose to move this to internal affairs.

Bill #4406 The $10M Capi. Bondi: I move to adopt bill 4406.

ii. Yearby: I would like to extend confidence time.1. Yearby: That will you give you a chance to ask

questions. 2. King: I move to previous question.

a. Vote: 21.0.3iii. Yearby: My original idea is that fees have gotten out of

hand. These are million dollar proposals. I have seen that we have approved many fees that students are for but things that students don’t support too. On the ballot, I want to get students opinion. We get 4000-5000 students to vote and we ca then see if they want to get new things that will impact their fees. Then SFRB and senate can make a better decision. There isn’t a lot of transparency of what the students want. I want to have a better survey that may sway members of SFRB and senate. We have become construction state university. It’s great we are becoming a better school, but maybe slowing things down

and putting more pressure on fee funded areas will help see that this is something students want.

iv. Sydoriak: We are trustees not delegates. This is a democratic mechanism that allows us to gain leverage that will help turn the university into something the students wants not the alumni or donors.

1. Crites: Would you be willing to open the dialogue of how much money they will pay per year?

a. Yearby: More questions the better, these two base questions I want to see every spring. SFRB and election committee should talk about more questions.

2. Crites: A lot of construction that goes on involves minor renovation and they find that there is asbestos in the floors. If it’s not safe for them to be there, should we be judging this with info we don’t know?

a. Yearby: Emergency situations will go through admin and tuition. I want students that have a say on fees can have a say. Can we find a way to bring the cost down?

b. Sydoriak: If we feel that that needs to be clarified, we can do that with campaign.

3. Seel: From my point of view, the point of being in an academic institution is pursuing education and supporting university education as a whole. For something like the biology building, something that is being built for specific colleges, do you feel that offering students input would be a fair judge of what the whole university will want vs a personal level?

a. Yearby: A good part of the population supports certain things. We will get opinions that will support and ones that will not. You have to look at access and affordability of college. It won’t hurt good projects with the students in mind and not having a college in mind.

4. Catron: I don’t think this is the best way to go about it. Elections are already hectic but there are other

forms that can come from this. How committed are you to this or are you open to other forms?

a. Yearby: This doesn’t change the process. This just says that before senate makes a decision to raise my fees hundreds of dollars, we will have a say.

5. Earle: How would this differ from SFRB surveys?a. Yearby: This will differ because it’s more

specific. Talking about 1 certain project.6. Earle: Have you spoken to any members of SFRB

members last year?a. Yearby: No because some of them are still

here and others are seniors who don’t care because they are graduating. This would hold it more accountable.

7. King: I move to exhaust the questions list.a. Bondi: I move to previous question.

i. Vote: passesii. Vote: passes

8. Nolan: This is a non-binding agreement?a. Yearby: Yes.

9. Laffey: Are you aware that university affairs, when discussing the biology building, sent out an extensive survey that perceived a large student response?

a. Yearby: I am awareb. Lancto: That survey was a mess and we ended

up throwing it out. Making a survey happen would be nice.

10. Gurau: How would you explain the sides for each point of view?

a. Yearby: I am not going to do it. SFRB will do it and elections committee will do it. I want it to be in the ASCSU elections.

v. Bondi: I have had the opportunity to sit on boards focused on tech fees and facility fees and those will be the boards these big processes come out of. I have been on SFRB for

3 years. They have been created to go through and brutalize any of these proposals. I understand value of student input but by the time it makes it to SFRB, it has already been beaten to a pulp. We want to be able to give them the time they need because we don’t have a lot of time. Their proposal becomes 2 weeks before it comes to senate. 2 weeks is too short of notice. I don’t believe giving a week or two weeks is possible to get opinions.

vi. Yearby: To counterbalance, if they could still debate and look at the project, I ask they wait on their vote till after the election. That’s usually the time the decisions are made. We push votes to the end for more questions. I want more students feeling like they have a voice. A lot of students don’t realize what fees they are being feed for. It won’t change the processes that are already allowed.

vii. Hansen: What is the authority of ASCSU to change by laws of SFRB?

1. Jordan: SFRB has total autonomy of their own by laws.

2. Yearby: The authority is changed in this bill.3. Yearby: The boundary is that they can’t vote until

they get the votes of the students.viii. Balster: As someone who pays for own education, I

appreciate the sentiment to have more oversight to what is being done. It is something that has been expressed over and over that people want input.

ix. Weinland: A lot of bigger projects when initiated, the students that voted aren’t even there. I don’t know if you will ever get positive results with information like fees.

1. Sydoriak: There have been universities that have done this.

x. Li Puma: Moving forward with this bill, I was hoping that the statistical language will be sent to a statistics value that will prove that it’s greater than our alpha.

xi. Catron: I move to send this bill to university affairs. 1. Yearby: I still want to hear new discussion before

this.

2. Gurau: I would not like to see this come to my committee. We want to address issues that will be addressed next week.

3. Catron: I move to move this to external affairs.a. Vote: 24.0.0b. Vote: 22.0.2

4. Vote: 24.0.0XIV. Announcements

Bondi: Everyone has to sit on internal committee. If anyone is unable to make those times, come to the front of the room so we can place you on a committee. If you don’t sit on an external committee, we are getting that taken care of. Once we move in, we will look at instituting a new office hour policy. There is supposed to be a green book handed to all senators, this needed to be edited and so we have overhauled it and created the gold book and it’s a how to guide on how to be a senator. We don’t want to print copies, so we are looking at putting it online. There will be 10 printed at the front desk to look at. We will have a copy with us at leadership at senate.

Yearby: Thanks for your participation in my bills. Roos: Event this weekend: Sustainable living fair. Good chance

to get out in community and wear your colors and name tags and business cards.

XV. Roll CallXVI. Adjournment